We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
CRITICISM OF THE WORK
65
libel. That is true even where he attempts to justify his act upon the ground that it was a mere jest.95 An oral imputation of insanity, however, was not held slanderous per se.96
Cas. No. 13,244a (C. C.). Where an author was referred to as a fraud, humbug and swindler, the words were held to be libelous.
Reade v. Sweetzer (1869), 6 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) (N.Y.) 9 (note). “The critic may say what he pleases of the literary merits or demerits of the published products of an author; but that with respect to his personal rights relating to his reputation the critic has no more privilege than any other person in assuming the business of criticism.”
The court then holds that accusing an author of writing matter of a demoralizing effect is libelous. See also: Kennedy v. Press Publ. Co. (1886), 41 Hun (N. Y.), 422; Hart v. Townsend (1884), 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 88; Archbold v. Sweet (Eng.) (1832), 5 Car. & P. 219; Macleod v. Wakely (Eng.) (1831), 3 Car. & P. 311; Graham v. McKimm (Can.), 19 Ont. 475; Browning v. Van Rensselaer (1899), 97 Fed. 531 (C. C.); Fraser v. Berkeley (Eng.) (1833), 7 C. & P. 621.
55 Triggs v. Sun Printing & Publishing Assn. (1904), 179 N. Y.
144; 71 N. E. 739. “A publication, which in effect represents an author as a presumptuous literary freak and ridicules his private life, is not within the bounds of fair and honest literary criticism, is libelous per se, and cannot be justified upon the ground that it was a mere jest, when it is perfectly manifest from the language employed that it is an attack upon his reputation or business.” The court cites Cooper v. Stone, 24 Wend. (N. Y.) 434; Mattice v. Wilcox, 71 Hun (N. Y.), 485; 24 N. Y. Supp. 1060; aff’d 147 N. Y. 624; 42 N. E. 270; Ilanneton v. Eno, 81 N. Y. 116.
96 “George, the Count Joannes ” v. Burt (1863), 88 Mass. 236. An oral imputation of insanity is not libelous per se.
See in this connection: Smith v. Clinton (Eng.) (1908), Times, Oct. 19-29. The printer is liable for libelous matter printed by him, and he cannot hold the proprietor of the work to account to him, even though it was expressly contracted that he be indemnified.